Why hasn't free enterprise taken over all the charity work already?

[a_unique_person]

The libertarian point of view is that charity can replace the role of government in looking after those unfortunate enough to not be able to look after themselves.

My question is, why haven't they done so already. Why are they waiting for the government to hand to role over to them? If they can do a better job than the government, why don't they. The money would all be tax deductable. They could show they aren't just spouting empty rhetoric.

[Segnosaur]

I'm not libertarian, but I would assume they would answer:

- Even though there are tax breaks currently, they are not that great, and people and companies still pay too much in taxes
- People may think "I don't need to help... that's the government's job". If the govenrment doesn't do that any more, people will be more inclined to step up and help.

On the last point, there may be a little evidence....
I remember hearing a few years ago that even though Canada is considered a 'kinder' nation than the U.S. by its citizens, it has a much lower rate of charitable donations, but much higher tax rate (and government support of the poor)

[aerocontrols]

but I assume I can still contribute some facts...

US (govt.) overseas aid budget: ~ 10 billion

US (private) overseas charity budget ~ 34 billion

Edit because I found the source (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp) of the info above. Scoll down to "Side note on private contributions".

Thu total amount of private charity given by private US entities is around 200 billion. (http://www.aafrc.org/press3.html)

MattJ

[The Central Scrutinizer]

And why don't the fundy christians do more? Are they too busy blowing up health clinics and burning books???

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

- People may think "I don't need to help... that's the government's job". If the govenrment doesn't do that any more, people will be more inclined to step up and help.


This is why I refuse to give money to any charity organization. I'm already paying charity unwillingly. I work hard to help feed millions of welfare recipients.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
And why don't the fundy christians do more? Are they too busy blowing up health clinics and burning books???
Yes.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
And why don't the fundy christians do more?

more than what?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The libertarian point of view is that charity can replace the role of government in looking after those unfortunate enough to not be able to look after themselves.

Point of clarification. This may be a conclusion some libertarians express. But it is hardly "the libertarian point of view", which is really just more about whose role it is (or probably more to the point, whose role it is not).


My question is, why haven't they done so already. Why are they waiting for the government to hand to role over to them? If they can do a better job than the government, why don't they. The money would all be tax deductable. They could show they aren't just spouting empty rhetoric.

These may be fair questions/observations for anyone "spouting" whatever rhetoric you're talking about, maybe even for some individual libertarians, if this is what they're saying, just don't try to pin that rhetoric on all of us.

[kittynh]

The really nice man running for gov. on the Libertarain ticket here said that charity should definitly take over all social welfare cases, including the severly mentally and physically disabled.
But, he really felt people would take on this burden gladly, so I don't think he was trying to be a mean guy.
I wasn't clear if his views on public schools was party line though. What is the official take on public schools?

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
On the last point, there may be a little evidence....
I remember hearing a few years ago that even though Canada is considered a 'kinder' nation than the U.S. by its citizens, it has a much lower rate of charitable donations, but much higher tax rate (and government support of the poor)

Actually, Canada's tax rate isn't significantly higher than that of the United States, especially compared to many European nations.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by kittynh
I wasn't clear if his views on public schools was party line though. What is the official take on public schools?

http://www.lp.org/issues/program/edu.html
In essence: no public schools.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Nasarius


Actually, Canada's tax rate isn't significantly higher than that of the United States, especially compared to many European nations.
Yes, Canada's tax rate is far higher than in the states.

Consider "Tax Freedom day", the day in which you have, in theory, finished paying taxes (and all your money goes to your own expenses, rather than Federal, state/provincial, and local governments.)

In the U.S., Tax freedom day occurs around April/May. See: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday.html

In the U.K., its in early to mid June. See: http://www.taxfreedomday.co.uk/

In Canada, tax freedom day is in late June. See: http://oldfraser.lexi.net/media/media_releases/1997/19970630.html

So, Canadians do pay much higher taxes than they do in the U.S. Depending on the state or province, it can easily be 20% higher, if not more. (There may be other European countries with higher tax rates, but I'm not sure which ones.)

(Edited to fix the link to Canada tax freedom day.)

[aerocontrols]

According to a 1997 Philanthropy Australia study, non-religious charities and community groups receive approximately $487 million in donations each year, considered low by international standards.

A separate study by the same organisation found Australians gave an average of $210 to charity per annum, compared with $320 donated by Canadians and the British, and $1000 from Americans.

Source (http://theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,5909117%255E2702,00.html).

[shanek]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
The libertarian point of view is that charity can replace the role of government in looking after those unfortunate enough to not be able to look after themselves.

My question is, why haven't they done so already. Why are they waiting for the government to hand to role over to them?

Because it's a lie. Many charities, such as the National MS Society I mentioned over in Banter, do their work with hardly any government money.

Why can't they do more? Possibly because government takes 48% of the National Income in taxes. According to Giving USA, people give on average 2.1% of their take-home pay to charities, regardless of tax rate, deductions, etc. Let's do some figuring:

On average, people have 7% of their paychecks taken to pay for welfare. The Federal government loses 2/3rds of this money to overhead, whereas private charities all lose less than 1/3rd. So even being generous, we're still looking at half as much money, or 3.5%, actually gets to welfare recipients. Since fully half of the people on welfare are actually capable of supporting themselves (who are weeded out by charities), this takes down to 1.7% the amount which go to people that need it.

We're already below the amount that would go to the poor through charities if we simply repealed the Income Tax. Now, add to that the fact that it costs the government 66¢ to collect $1, and we're left with just .5% of our tax money actually going to those who need it.

Whereas, if we cut out all of these programs and eliminated the Income Tax, the poor would receive over four times as much money through as the government gets to them now!

[shanek]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
This is why I refuse to give money to any charity organization. I'm already paying charity unwillingly. I work hard to help feed millions of welfare recipients.

Charities do a much better job of targeting the people who need the money and actually getting them back to where they can support themselves, something the government has an abysmal record of doing.

Also, many charities receive less than 1%, if any, of their money from government sources.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Nasarius


http://www.lp.org/issues/program/edu.html
In essence: no public schools.

Well, no government schools, anyway. There'd be nothing stopping a group of local citizens forming a board to run a local public school, which was pretty much how it was until the 1950s.

[Skeptical Greg]

Excellent Post shanek !


It is well to remember.. Big government is not about helping anyone.. It is about power..
That is why they are so good at the latter and lousy at the former..

( The same can be said of organized religion... )

added:

The long one, before the last two..